Search results

You cannot force people to interact with other members of society, show them markers such as body language, like other people or even be nice to 99% of the population. What an absurd thing to say.

It is a human construction, yes. Beneficial and counter-productive actions, in terms of society and utilitarianism, exist, and it is this complex relationship between biological reality and human thought that resulted in the ideologies of morality that inhabit thought up to today.

Sure, but you're operating on a flawed original assumption of God with not a single shred of evidence and this forces you to re-interpret vast chunks of evidence simply to fit your original assumption; it is wholly unscientific.

Wow ... I've not seen more bigotry in one thread since ... the last thread on Islam we had.

That would have been my version of 'suit up'. I don't even own a suit.

Well I didn't say that one could not be a scientist and religious, I said that scientific and religious thought are mutually exclusive. If some scientist choose to ignore their scientific training, knowledge and rationality in their personal beliefs it is rather irrelevant. That was one point...

Our choice to either follow it or be tortured forever for eternity; not only that but for some reason he created a creature (i.e. the devil) to try and lead us astray from that plan. That just sounds highly negligent.

Which candidate is the absolute moron that wants to introduce a religion officer to the union or some such idiotic bullshit?

This line of discussion is pointless; what are you trying to show here? There was no cultural takeover in any of the terms you envisage it. No, the problem is that you assume the Bible to have an overall message of peace and love based on the tradition that you accept and, in doing so, take it...

Well his existence is; that he was a cultist figure in Judea that lived around this time, had a following, was named Christus or something similar and died (somehow) is basically all we can reliably say.

You clearly are at a loss to understand what we are attempting to say. You have said this several times and the difference has been pointed out to you. Morality is a natural development that is a result of humanity's interaction with the biological realities of its existence; it is not being...

Profound.

No. Evolution does not attempt to explain the development of consciousness, sentience and higher forms of intelligence, and nor did I. I did, however, point out that it is rather obvious that morality evolves from the engagement of humanity, in possession of this consciousness, with the...

You have edited your post: Slightly more readable, no less idiotic. There is no proof to show that humanity did not, of their own accord and by an entirely explicable process, did not develop the idea that murder is bad before the myth of the 10 commandments developed in the 7th century BC...

More or less. The fact that this relationship and monopoly is little more than an illusion. This makes no sense. Please re-read my post, re-acquaint yourself with the English language and try again.

Yes, thank you for that completely pointless link; my comments had a far more specific focus, however.

Some people like to think that morality and religion are somehow inherently linked, and that only religion has a role to play in answering or explaining morality in human society. They tend to like to think that religion, especially Christianity (for expediency's sake), have played a role in...

No. You misunderstand, I think. The knowledge we have of the origins of the Israelites does not come from 'history' but from archaeology and cultural analysis. But no, they didn't have to come from somewhere, in the short term. In the longer term, everyone came from somewhere, yes, but that's...

That's cool. The article wasn't online, as far as I remember, but that's basically it minus some personal remarks towards the person whose claim it was refuting, which was that the Bible was basically historical and that it was only deemed to be unhistorical because of what we hadn't found...

Because they are not passed on by word of mouth. Epic tales that are passed down by word of mouth have their own distinct linguistic marks, such as in Homer, that demonstrate such origins; the Bible has none of these, and all of those that mark it down as a composed text. That is not to say...